Concern over William Lane Craig’s justification of biblical genocide

William Lane Craig went ahead with his “empty chair for Dawkins” stunt in his Oxford appearance. While many of his fans loved the trick, Craig didn’t get off unharmed by his stalking of Richard Dawkins. Obviously some of Craig’s fans are concerned about Dawkins’ reference to Craig’s justification of biblical genocide. So he was forced to confront the issue during question time.

“However, ultimately one question exposed Craig’s alarmingly questionable moral principles: “Dawkins has refused to debate you because (he says) you think genocide could be acceptable in some contexts. Have you ever said anything which warrants this view, and what do you actually think?” He started with the straightforward denial that we expected – “I have not in any way ever said that God commanded, or could command, human genocide”. However, the following ten minute explanation of Numbers 33:50-54 (look it up) did not involve a justification of genocide, merely a justification of the mass displacement of an ethnic group; the kicker at the end was his summary that if this forced displacement did involve killing some Canaanites, well the adults deserved it because they were sinful, and it’s alright because the children went straight to heaven. Seriously?”

“The widespread applause this statement extracted from the audience was possibly more alarming than the statement itself. Somewhere up in the wings a lone voice was shouting “Boo”; the news editor and I stared gormlessly; the rest of the spectators seemed to find this little speech all fine and dandy. I am a religious person, and as a person of faith (not in spite of it) I was morally repulsed by this analysis, and deeply concerned about the intellectual and moral fibre of the believers who found it commendable.”

“The only benefit of the doubt that I can possibly extend to Craig (and I am scraping the barrel) is that under pressure he grasped at the nearest explanation for Biblical injustices which came to mind, and would – hopefully will – qualify his extraordinary comments at some later date. I shan’t hold my breath.”

“However, in a question and answer session near the end of the debate, Craig’s response to the accusation that he approves of Biblical genocide provoked murmurs of disapproval from parts of the audience, and a loud boo from the upper wings.

“There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all,” he initially said, referring to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, “the command was to drive them out.”

Then Craig said: “But, how could God command that the children be killed, as they are innocent?”

“I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. “

One attendee, who wished not be named, called Craig’s argument “alarming”: “I’m a Christian who generally agrees with Craig’s ideas but what he said for the last question was simply disturbing. He completely contradicted himself, one minute saying that, effectively, no children were killed in the genocide, only to say later on that it was OK that children died, that it was God’s will, and that they were saved from a debauched culture.”

He added: “I believe in a benevolent God, but that didn’t sound very benevolent at all.”

I suspect Craig will come to regret the way he has approached this problem. He has the habit of inventing explanations for things and sticking to them. even declaring his opponents are dishonest or illogical if they don’t accept his arguments.

But when it comes to strong moral issues like genocide more and more of his fans will come to see these arguments as disingenuous. Especially if he repeats his justifications ad nauseam. A habit of his.

Credit: Photo by Apolgetics 315. Yes the photo is doctored – but not by me.

35 responses to “Concern over William Lane Craig’s justification of biblical genocide”

I find the man, his arguments and his theology repulsive. Just the thought of the ridiculous stupidity employed by the disgusting morons who think genocide is defensible infuriates me to no end.

I wrote a post on the subject in May and I’d leave a link but some of the language and imagery might not be appropriate. I felt that those who would defend genocide should have a good, hard look at what genocide his before claiming to defend the indefensible.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

That is a straightforward command to genocide. It’s in the Bible, it’s from ‘god’. Genocide is evil therefore ‘god’ is evil.

Neither, i have read lots of what WLC has had to say and never once have i understood him to be trying to justify genocide.
As i understand it what he has said repeatedly is that IF a good and loving GOD, rational and in full possession of ALL the facts was to make such a decision then on what basis would we question it?
This does not necessarily accept that such a genocide has ever taken place, and provides no mandate for anyone to do so.
There is nothing in any of WLC’s comments that could ever be validly interpreted as permission or doctrinal support for committing genocide today.
Who among us is a rational and omnipotent GOD?

So i am going to have to repeat my question in an even simpler form..
“What is ‘evil’ and on what basis can you describe anything as evil?

As i just read elswhere…
‘ If there is moral truth, it did not evolve into being—we merely evolved the ability, or hunger, to apprehend it ‘ and ‘The New Atheists who claim there can be a “real” good without a correspondent good being—their epistemology hovers over an abysmal ontology. Coyne and Thibodeau understandably leave out the nihilist alternative of the atheist existentialists (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, et cetera) that without a God to which a ‘real’ good may correspond, there is no good beyond what we choose/create/will (there is no moral truth).’

This is the point i have repeatedly tried to make to you Ken, that on naturalism there is no good/evil beyond what we choose/create/will and of course this changes with time circumstance and fashion.
And i suspect it is why no one can or will answer me when i ask ‘what is wrong with genocide’ or ‘why is genocide evil’?, cause really the only answer honestly available to them is that genocide is currently out of fashion.

You have said in previous comments Ken that you dont take morality from what happens in the animal kingdom nor from the historic practices of humanity, though at the same time you have pointed to dolphins, chimps, bonobos etc. Fair enough. What you have never done is provide justification for thinking homo sapiens should be regarded differently.

So again, what are good and bad other than utilitarian concepts? Is there actually such a thing as ‘evil’? why? by what criteria?

Craig’s response is nothing new for him nor was it a grasping at straws in a desperate attempt at last minute justification. He has in other debates strongly endorsed the work of Paul Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster’ which in essence says exactly the same thing. If one only understands the situation and the embraces the Biblical World view one will see that God was morally justified to do whatever it was he did or command whatever it was he commanded.

Craig endorsed Divine Command Theory which simply states that whatever God commands if good and right and just simply because he commands it. Whatever God does is good and right and just simply because he does it. He argues that God is the ground of objective morality. Goodness is grounded in and defined by the nature of God. God further acts consistently out of his nature.

In the end this is saying nothing. God is self-defining and cannot be judged by anything outside himself. Good is good and right is right simply because God says they are. How do you know that God is good is a meaningless question, simply because he is God. This does not make morals or goodness objective or non-relative, it simply moves the question from humans (which makes it objective and non-relative to us) to God. So goodness is relative to the nature of God, whatever that may be and subjective to God as it is not defined by anything outside himself.

Ultimately this is an argument from revelation and not from reason or natural religion. It is a faith based conclusion based on the Christian view of the Bible which he tries to make plausible by pseudo philosophical reasoning.

Everything God does or commands is supremely good, why, because God is supremely good, why, because, well, because without this argument there could be no objective morality and that is after all what we want and feel like should be the case and because the Bible says so.

Craig and Jeremy have no basis for declaring that their particular version of “god” is good, other than fiat. They say he is good, therefore he is. Some writers in the Bible say he is good, or say that he says he is good, therefore he is because Craig and Jeremy say that nothing written in the Bible is ever wrong. Their subjective opinion. So moral absolutes that come from this version of god come from the selective minds of Craig and Jeremy. Hmmmm. Not very logically sound.

I suspect, dear Jeremy, if I were to break into your house, rape your wife and daughter in front of you, torture your children to death by pouring boiling water over them and then your wife by slicing little bits off of her with a hot knife so as to cauterize the wounds and prolong the agony right before cutting your arms and legs off while laughing at you and having a merry old time, you would ‘miraculously’ develop a fairly clear understanding of what evil is.

The problem with you and all the other fools who have to believe that ‘genocide is currently out of fashion’ and have this mysterious inability to articulate what evil is, is that the rest of us reasonable people have to put up with you.

Murdering thousands of children Jeremy, that is evil. Killing somebody, killing men, woman and children because you think your imaginary friend told you to, is not ONLY stupid it is also evil.

But of course, your entire argument is nothing but sophistry. And lets face it, you NEED to believe mass murder can be seen in a light other than pure evil since your imagined deity is so damn fond of having it happen.

OK, Jeremy, you are obviously not in the camp of those shocked by Craig’s justifications of genocide (in this case his “explanations” which amounted to the same thing – justification of murdering people who didn’t vacate their land and young children because they went to heaven!!).

But, think for a moment. Why is it though most people there accepted Craig’s excuses a significant number didn’t? They were in fact shocked by his excuses for genocide.

Why should there be those different reactions? After all most of them were theists, and possible all accepted Craig’s idea of “divine command” ethics – until confronted with the bloody reality of its consequences.

Jeremy, as you know I am going to deal with this in more depth in an upcoming article (topical as the ID people are currently also pushing the same argument as you do. The “divine command” seems to have gone out). For the moment, I am repeating here what I have often written before. If you have not come across it you should read more carefully.

Evolutionary development does not “explain” human morality in the way you suggest, nor should it. That is a really dumb caricature, surely not meant seriously, but meant to misrepresent the science of morality.

Humans did evolve, and we evolve to become a sentient, intelligent, empathetic and social species. That is of course condensing a lot. But in the process of evolving as creatures with a large brain we had an organ which could do other things apart from those which helped with our natural selection.

The ability to solve differential equations was surely not a requirement of selection, was it? Are you going to say: “On what basis can I say humans are able to solve differential equations? After all, lions don’t. Under naturalism you can’t explain that ability. How do they know their solutions are correct? Therefore my god did it.” The old argument from ignorance.

So these humans, with all their abilities resulting from evolution (but not all of which were required for natural selection) attend Craig’s lecture (or debate with an empty chair). How do they respond to his talk, and specifically for his renewed justification for genocide?

Well, most of them are sympathetic to Craig, believing in (very roughly) the same god he does. And they are confronted with what Craig describes as a debate – a debate with someone most of these people really don’t like. So it’s natural that the old “them vs us” intuitions come into play (Yes these intuitions result from our natural selection and underlie a lot of what is negative about us – including the ability to commit genocide).

This is basically an emotional reaction (what is required to fight) not an intelligent one (although intelligence comes into use to provide rationalisations for their behaviour).

But there are people in that audience who are able to use their intelligence in a more active way (and not just intelligence because they will also react emotively to Craig’s justifications for genocide – suggesting to me that their moral system is actually more developed than that of the rest of the audience). These people can see, or have seen before from reflective consideration, what the reality of genocide is. That it means people are being unjustly murdered. Not only active, or potentially active, combatants, but civilians, women and children. Yes the children. They can intellectually see the horror of this, that it is murder many times over. And worse because it may be aimed at destroying a whole clan or race.

And as empathetic beings these people have value systems which scream out to them such things are “wrong.” (Unfortunately their fellow audience members appear to have suppressed their natural emotional reactions because they are under the grip of another very strong emotional reaction based on the “them vs us” intuition. The later intuition is more developed in some than others (unfortunately strong ideologies and religions seem to cultivate that intuition).

So, no, concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not just utilitarian concepts as you suggest. They are very strong emotional responses arising from the facts of our existence as social creatures. Utilitarian issues may well be involved in the conscious rehearsing of moral issues, – but in the end our moral system must operate automatically. We do not have the luxury of standing around deliberating (a very slow human process) when confronted with life and death situations. If that was the only way we operated we would have been selected out.

My point exactly Ken, i agree with you. But still no one seems to be prepared to answer the question , What defines right and wrong?

“And as empathetic beings these people have value systems which scream out to them such things are “wrong.” ” true but through history and even currently there are plenty of people who do and act in manners that you dont like, who are you to say that the way they choose to behave and/or react to other people and the situations they find themselves in is right or wrong.

You seem to be grounding morality in empathy, but as we know from science individuals empathy quotient [EQ] varies considerably. What level of EQ is necessary to say an action is right or wrong. If some one has a very low EQ can there behaviour then be regarded as immoral?

and to onefuriousllama
i know perfectly well what evil is, but then the existence of evil, right and wrong are a consistant part of my world view.
What no one is prepared to explain is how they fit in yours other than the fact that there are some things you just dont like.

I am sure gazelles dont like being hunted and eaten by cheetahs, actually i am sure no prey likes being sucessfuuly predated. We kill millions of bacteria every time we wash our hands.Our species depends on the regular death of countles others to survive. Even within our own species we are in endless competiton, although smaller groups sometimes cooperate in the face of that competition [ so do other animals ].

As i have pointed out to Ken, historically human groups have used conquest, colonisation and genocide sucessfully many times in the past and such things continue around the globe even today. He doesnt like this, he says things like..
“So, no, concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not just utilitarian concepts as you suggest. They are very strong emotional responses arising from the facts of our existence as social creatures. Utilitarian issues may well be involved in the conscious rehearsing of moral issues, – but in the end our moral system must operate automatically. We do not have the luxury of standing around deliberating (a very slow human process) when confronted with life and death situations.”
but that is of course my point, we see human morality in action by looking at our history and out the window, the ‘evil’ is as consistantly a typical part of human behaviour as is the good. Which raises the question by what standard are somethings good or evil, right or wrong?
Ken insists that i caricature evolution when i point out that there is only one standard [ measured in arrears ]–whatever works to sucessfully get your genes into the next and subsequent generations– but offers no other. Human history and evolutionary history is written by the winners not by the losers.
Ken would accuse me of ‘out-sourcing’ my morality, but i think his version cannot be evaluated until long after his death and it can be determined whether or not his choices were sucessful.

Ultimately your argument is not with me, i as a despised Christian believe there are such truths as right, wrong, good and evil [ although you may disagree with my foundation for these ]. Your argument is actually with other atheists who find your views confused and inconsistant –the nihilist atheist existentialists (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, et cetera) who argue that without a God to which a ‘real’ good may correspond, there is no good beyond what we choose/create/will (there is no moral truth).’
There is your problem , you have to come up with justification that what you choose/create/will is any better or more valid than what anyone else does. Otherwise to paraphrase Rosmary from an earlier comment here , it all comes down to your own subjective opinion, not very logically sound.

Jeremy, your little history lessons are irrelevant. We all know than humans have been responsible for some pretty bad things.

But there are two approaches to morality being proposed here. Yours is a form of moral relativism as enscribed in “IF a good and loving GOD, rational and in full possession of ALL the facts was to make such a decision then on what basis would we question it”. I have pointed out that this is exactly the way that blind followers of Hitler, Stalin and Pinochert (and Mao) behaved. They outsourced their moral decisions. Something is “right” because their god or other “divine” commander ordained it so. No wonder huamnd have been capable of genocide and other atrocities.

The approach I described is one that relies on, promotes, moral autonomy. The ability of humans to rationaly consider the effects of their actions. To be intellectually and emotionally aware of how the other feels. To beable to rationally consider the facfvts of any situation and to estimate consequences.

No, I don;t ground morality in empathy (alone) Remember I usie the words “conscious, intelligent, social and sentient” to. These all have cosnequences and I am actually concentrating mainly on intelligent – the ability to be rational and to reason. To consider the objective facts and attempt to voercome simple emotional reacitons.

Those without a moral autonomy will only have the emotions and intutions. they will not approach the situation rationally. They will be responding to such negative intutions as the “them vs us” (an intution that Craig and his mates really play on) which can have the most dire cosequences.

Jeremy – to say “whatever works to sucessfully get your genes into the next and subsequent generations– but offers no other. “ just indicates that you refuse to give up your caricature. How the hell does such a vulger caricature help you understand why and how we can solve differential equations? Or why we know when the solutions we get are “correct” or “not?” Your worldview doesn’t seem to allow for this.

I have written quite a lot here (and yes it it general and condensed – inevitable in a comment) but you refuse to get your head around it – preferring to stick with your vulgar caricature. Hardly respectful to a discussion partner, is it.

Jeremy you claim to “believe there are such truths as right, wrong, good and evil” (being either despised or a christian is of course irrelevant). Well what about answering the question I put to you and your mates some time ago. “How do you know what a particular “moral truth” is? What method do you use? I have been arguing my approach quite extensively but find that you and your mates keep avoiding my question, pretending that its a wife beating one and other childish diversiopns. (The few answers I got raise concerns (eg revelation), provide nothing new (eg intution) and really play down or ignore the role of rational, reasoned consideration necessary for moral autonomy7.

But you can see the problem, surely. To rave on about ontology as if that has done all the work you are still left with moral relativcism. Becuase you are relying on a “divine commander” to tell you what is right and wrong – you can’t question her. Exactly the problem with the followers of Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, franco, etc.

Ken you are consistantly missing the point, i did not develop evolutionary theory, take it up with those who did.
What i keep saying about transmitting genes into the next generation and beyond isnt my caricature, it is the theory. Individuals with adaptive advantage breed more sucessfully than others. The only determinant of sucess is breeding.
Current evolutionary theory posits ‘intelligence’ as having been a major adaptive advantage. Intelligence may indeed enable us to more than just survive, it has apparently led to the wholesale rape and destruction of the very environment we depend on for survival. We are the only species so far capable of wholesale environmental destructionand we are on target to become the first species capable of recording our own demise directly as a result of our own actions. It is also a well established part of evolutionary theory that intra-species competition is generally greater than inter-species competition , ie we are our own main competitors.
Solving differential equations is a byproduct of intelligence, thats easy.
But your question ‘how do i know what a particular moral truth is’? is only relevant if there really is such a thing as ‘moral truth’ and i think you need to answer that question first. As previously mentioned you need to answer ‘the nihilist atheist existentialists (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, et cetera) who argue that without a God to which a ‘real’ good may correspond, there is no good beyond what we choose/create/will (there is no moral truth).’

This is the question you refuse to address, what is there other than your opinion and why would your opinion be any more relevant than any one elses?
Moral autonomy is fine and good, as are reason and rationality, but how do you know your morallity actually matches up with moral truth. In the lab you would use a ‘standard’ and check for precision and bias. Instruments cannot be their own ‘standards’, whenever you talk about moral autonomy you seem to imply that people can. On what basis is the good you choose/create/will any more good than that of Adolf, Joe or Mao, they are after all fairly striking examples of morally autonomous individuals.

Jeremy, if you see ability to solve differential equation as “by product” you are welcome (it’s a description I don’t actually think adequate – I disagree with Dawkins on that – you agree with him). Then you have to admit that most things about humans are by products. But no less valuable for that.

Then you must conclude that the vulgar evolutionary morality you promote is silly, naive in the extreme.

(Actually I don’t know of anyone who seriously advocates such a description of human morality – it is clearly an aggressive import from militant theists).

As for moral “truth” I have certainly explained how I get there from an objective basis. You have yet to define your concept of a “moral truth” (I have assumed you agree with Craig’s “divine commands”)but I don’t see that should be an obstacle.

So why so hesitant?

Why do you guys have such huge problems in answering a simple question?

Very few modern atheists are nihilists; nor does the average atheist consider nihilism to be an “atheist” position. This is a Christian myth.

Nihilism is to atheism as Nazism is to Christianity. Some historical atheists were also nihilists and some historical Christians were also Nazis; both factions believed that their religion or lack of religion was compatible with or even dictated these attitudes. These days, there are probably some people who believe that atheism compels nihilism and some who believe that Christianity compels antisemitism, but both positions are un-representative of the usual positions taken by members of these groups.. If it is not deliberately deceptive then suggesting otherwise is simply evidence of ignorance .

“Then you have to admit that most things about humans are by products. But no less valuable for that.

Then you must conclude that the vulgar evolutionary morality you promote is silly, naive in the extreme.”

I am certainly not promoting any evolutionary morality, and where do you get the value judgment ‘vulgar’ from. Even Dawkins ended up having to admit that the only value and purpose in life were those we made up ourselves, subjective values only, nature doesnt care. Nature cannot care.
I find it amusing that in the past atheist scientific naturalists have argued to me that mans insignificance on universe sized physical and time scales makes the idea of God laughable, yet when i repeat well used points concerning mans insignificance on a planetary history scale and in an evolutionary sense [ and how in these contexts any moral perceptions are temporary and ultimately meaningless ] suddenly people want value and meaning and right and wrong, even moral truth. Trouble is Ken, if you are right then it really doesnt matter and the universe does not care, we are nothing more than a pestilent species not far from self induced extinction on an insignificant planet in a very minor part of a very minor galaxy.
Honestly if i wasnt already Christian i think i would rather believe God loves me, than ‘know’ that everything i was, said, did, thought or deluded myself into valuing was utterly worthless and pointless.
You think i’m deluded because of my Christianity, i think in your context you are just a temporary conglomeration of cells with an illusion of self awareness, desperately trying to pretend otherwise. Objectively, which of us is sadder? Me believing in meaning or you wanting to while insisting there isnt?

Well? I don’t know what brought that on Jeremy. Perhaps it’s just a way of avoiding my questions again.

But here is a wee test for you. You correctly point out that Dawkins would never advocate the vulgar evolutionary morality you have promoted (and incidentally you clearly can’t suggest anyone else who would either). But you do attribute a subjectivism to him I am not aware of (you claim he thinks the “only value and purpose in life were those we made up ourselves, subjective values only”) – well lets have a quote then – I believe you are distorting Dawkins message there – sure nature doesnt give a stuff but humans certainly do.

“I find it amusing that in the past atheist scientific naturalists have argued to me that mans insignificance on universe sized physical and time scales makes the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster laughable, yet when i repeat well used points concerning mans insignificance on a planetary history scale and in an evolutionary sense [ and how in these contexts any moral perceptions are temporary and ultimately meaningless ] suddenly people want value and meaning and right and wrong, even moral truth.
Honestly if i wasnt already a Pastafarian i think i would rather believe His Noodly One loves me, than ‘know’ that everything i was, said, did, thought or deluded myself into valuing was utterly worthless and pointless.
You think i’m deluded because of my Pastafarianism, i think in your context you are just a temporary conglomeration of cells with an illusion of self awareness, desperately trying to pretend otherwise. Objectively, which of us is sadder?”

Thanks for the update. When I first read Craig’s insane justification for biblical genocide, I thought the article might be taken down after public pressure. It’s good to hear that he’s paying a price for this stand. Maybe now his bravado will wane.

The punch line in his article was that it wasn’t the death of the adults that was a problem (they deserved it) nor the death of the children (they flew straight to paradise on gossamer wings). Rather, it was the Israelite soldiers who were most harmed, since they were forced to do all that killing. Wow–Christianity can rot your brain.

CRAIG
f you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation.

The preceding comment remains cryptic to me.

Why the big deal about Jesus dying for our sins, when Craig assures us that death is simply a gateway to salvation, paradise and heavenly bliss?

This is a very good question, lol, although it’s an blindingly obvious question it’s the first time I’ve ever seen it put. Moreover, I’m quite sure millions of human’s have endured more unpleasant demises than that reportedly suffered by Jesus .